Talk:Carol W. Greider

Date of the discovery of telomerase?
The article on telomerase dates the discovery of this enzyme to 1985, with a reference (vs 1984 in this article about Carol W. Greider). --Myrabella (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is now a new section on the discovery itself that should clarify the discovery date. MiRroar (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing research
Proposal: another new section about Greider's continuing telomere research.

I also think her openness about her dyslexia is commendable and inspiring and should be in the article. MiRroar (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

major missing point
How come there is nothing about the nobel prize in the body? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Carol W. Greider. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022193507/http://blogs.dnalc.org:80/dnaftb/2009/10/05/blackburn-greider-and-szostak-share-nobel-for-telomeres/ to http://blogs.dnalc.org/dnaftb/2009/10/05/blackburn-greider-and-szostak-share-nobel-for-telomeres/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional information on dyslexia and telomerase discovery
I added some information about Greider's dyslexia and the impact it has had on her research. I also went a little bit further into the discovery process she went through to confirm findings with Elizabeth Blackburn. Naomiroll (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section
User added this section which details an allegation from Bret Weinstein to his brother Eric Weinstein on Eric's podcast that Bret's work was suppressed and subsequently plagiarized by Greider. I have no idea nor opinion as to whether this is factually correct, but wanted input as to its inclusion within Greider's article as it currently exists. This is certainly not my field of expertise, hence the request for comments, but I feel this may go against WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPGOSSIP and likely should be removed unless other reputable sources are found. GauchoDude (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed the RFC tag; this is premature since there's been no discussion. Please see WP:RFCBEFORE.  There's also WP:BLPN as a possible place to get some more eyes if you think something inappropriate is being done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies,, I was unaware of the process (per above, not my field of expertise!). Thanks for the insight!
 * Per WP:BLPN and in light of WP:BOLD, I've simply removed the content unless further discussion warrants inclusion. GauchoDude (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User : likewise, this is not my area of expertise nor was it my intention to violate any rules (though I am not yet convinced I have). Any more clarity would be appreciated, as I see that the section has now been deleted. I would especially like clarity on the following point: if a local news source had interviewed Bret on his perception of the scandal, then it would be valid to include on this page, correct? What if Bret had been interviewed on Joe Rogan's podcast (or another large podcast)—would that be acceptable? If so, I am not sure why the fact that this podcast was hosted by Bret's brother is immediately disqualifying. Listening to the podcast, one hears that they are concerned with the truth, very complimentary to Ms. Greider, and are simply seeking to advocate a perspective that they believe has been institutionally suppressed. I would regret if Wikipedia were to become unintentionally complicit in this suppression on anything but the most rigorous grounds. (apologies if I have not formatted this response correctly)Kafkabot83 (talk)


 * I have no idea, which is why I'd prefer others more informed to weigh in. Again, I'm not advocating for nor against, but would like more input. What I do know per WP:BLP is that the information has to be correct. I'm going to wiki-vomit a bit on this page, but I do so to shed light as to my thought process. Per your points above:


 * 1. re: "if a local news source" to "immediately disqualifying." — How I interpret this is that WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:SELFPUBLISH come in to play here. The website hosting has no editorial input and anything (true or not) could hypothetically be hosted. Just because Bret shares these as facts doesn't necessarily make it so. Should the interview (or some other outside sources) come in to play, e.g. your local news source above, I think it provides a stronger case. Because this, in my opinion, is WP:SELFPUBLISH, I think it should require a higher degree of verifiability from other sources instead of relying on this singular instance.


 * 2. re: "Listening to the podcast" to "rigorous grounds." — This has no bearing to address the above.


 * Ultimately, again in my opinion, I think it's more important to get the article correct and I'm also concerned at the moment with WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPREMOVE. Removing the (quite important) factor of whether this is the truth or not from the equation, at surface level this is a guy who was directly impacted by a potential event talking to his brother using a self-published medium. I think to make a claim as substantial of "Greider stole my ideas and systematically held me down" requires a much higher level of sourcing.


 * Again, I'm not saying his version of events is or isn't correct, I'm more operating on what I believe is required by Wikipedia for inclusion here. GauchoDude (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"Ultimately, again in my opinion, I think it's more important to get the article correct and I'm also concerned at the moment with WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPREMOVE. Removing the (quite important) factor of whether this is the truth or not from the equation, at surface level this is a guy who was directly impacted by a potential event talking to his brother using a self-published medium. I think to make a claim as substantial of "Greider stole my ideas and systematically held me down" requires a much higher level of sourcing."

"potential event talking to his brother using a self-published medium." Not his self published medium, though. Also on the substance of the allegation, there's a misunderstanding. Bret has been very clear about wanting the content to be out in the open be it from her feather, so he could quote her, but she allegedly refused to publish so she could instead build a record of making correct predictions with the theory as an unspoken basis. Bret's work has been published for over a decade albeit not where he initially wanted it published and at a later date ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11909679 ). What's alleged is the extent to which Carol Greider knew about the selective breeding that's going on with lab rats and that this might influence telomere length positively, cancer resistance negatively and toxin resistance positively, with her choosing to remain not just silent on the issue but also hostile on a peer-review level. It'd be useful to get a higher level source, like people who were involved in the peer review process beyond her, however as long as these people do not step forward one way or another we should be ambivalent about the situation and honor the criticism between two peers by presenting it in an ambivalent manner on the wiki article, considering the gain for the public far exceeds any personal gain that could be had. These are serious allegations not so much towards her but towards the process that rewards a publish or perish mindset. RaoulTheWok (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh he did want an acknowledgement, just finished watching that interview. Either way the lab mouse Telomere issue casts an interesting light on a long history of drug licensing (in addition to the issue of peer review being effective in a publish or perish style environment). Example given by Bret in that interview, drugs causing unexpected heart damage that may go unnoticed when testing on animals with artificially great tissue regeneration capacities (at the cost of cancer resistance). RaoulTheWok (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note, the allegation also includes that when Greider did end up publishing something related, that she did downplay issues concerning lab mice for predicting side effects of drugs. RaoulTheWok (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note, I want to apologize on part of the portal community for the low effort defacings of this article. We seem to have more members which have loose standards of evidence than i would like. Overall the portal generates layman interest for certain academic topics however those laymans have little understand how academia functions, what plagiate is or what an academic advisor is. I am not sure if that apology belongs here but it might give some additional context for what is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:638:904:FFE8:5579:9A60:54BD:C5B2 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Awards and honors
Hello Wikipedians, I am trying to fill in some historical information and have added to the list of awards and honors. I added references to the vast majority but have not added any links to the awards/associations yet. Please let me know if you see any errors; I did check all the reference links prior to adding them.Mastrong (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would comment that not all awards are created equal, plus the list is incredibly lengthy. It would potentially be best to stick with more notable awards, e.g. those with (or that should have) specific Wikipedia articles so there's a demonstration of said notability? For example, I don't think being an "Honorary Member, New York Academy of Sciences (2017)" adds to the article the way that "Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (2009)" does. GauchoDude (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I am new to editing Wikipedia and you had a very valid point. I removed some of the entries I made to refine the list as you suggested. Mastrong (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Subsequent career
Hello Wikipedians, I am filling in some scientific information, keeping it as brief as possible.

File:GREIDER Carol 2014 - Less vignetting.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:GREIDER Carol 2014 - Less vignetting.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 15, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-04-15. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)